Tell me why.

I posed some simple questions a number of articles back and I’d like to begin this piece by asking them again, because they’re fundamental.

Don’t they know how many of our own poor can no longer afford to heat their homes? Don’t they know how many millions die in the developing world from malaria because we won’t allow them access to DDT? Don’t they know that a million children a year die or are simply blinded for life by withholding the distribution golden rice? Don’t they know how many lives could be saved by supplying the poor with drought and disease resistant GM seeds? Don’t they know that switching from growing food staples to growing biofuel crops for cars only the rich can afford has more than doubled prices of basic foods? Don’t they know about the people killed in the food riots? Do they actually know anything? Do they care anyway?

There’s no oily sophistry about those questions, no sophistication, no tricky debating traps, no guile, no hidden agenda but always an essential inhumanity to the silence or uneasy evasiveness with which they’re met. I’ve raised an impolite subject. The truth is people are not dying, they’re being killed and we’re the ones through inaction doing the killing. I make no apology for being so blunt because they’re needed questions, simple questions, brutal even, and yet there’s always that awkward silence in response to them.

There really isn’t a party line on the moral dilemmas which are at the very heart of those questions, because morality is no longer about people or ones behaviour towards them, but simply about what’s good for the Earth or not. All else is subordinate to that consideration. In a deeper sense though, any wider altruistic morality is now about nothing more than projecting a good image of oneself rather than any notion of common humanity.

What we’re talking about are the lives of the most vulnerable being needlessly sacrificed atop a green altar, because of an almost automatic obeisance to a new and terrible earth goddess called Gaia.

You might think those questions were addressed at the real climate fanatics, those who’re absolutely determined to save the Earth even if that means over the megadeath, rigour-mortised and stacked-high burning corpses of humanity, but you’d be wrong because as must be obvious by now, those zealots simply don’t care about such collateral damage. After all, a smaller, more “sustainable” number of people on the Earth is one of their oft expressed aspirations. Humanity is a plague on the Earth, to quote David Attenborough.

Those questions were originally directed at the religious bodies of our rich developed world but with the sure and certain expectation of nothing in reply, not only because they were rhetorical but because the churches are by now in denial or wilfully blind to the moral issues presented by those questions.

They’ve fallen so far down into the abyss of the governing elite’s unquestioned dogma, which puts the Earth before the human cost of protecting it, that they now effectively worship a graven but green image in their desert of moral desolation. They’ve lost touch with that most basic imperative of all religions – the duty of care we all have towards the poor and vulnerable. Common decency, if you will.

Those questions, like this article, are now being addressed to the footsoldier clergy of those churches; the priests and the pastors, the imams and the rabbis, the holy men, the human beings representing their respective faiths and trying to make a difference in the lives of their local congregations.

This issue is not about science, since climate science has long ago allowed itself to become a compliant and willing harlot to politics. Like the great whore of Babylon, it sucks greedily on the teat of notoriety and all integrity has long since fled. Political sentiment can be changed because it’s driven by the fickle beast of popular opinion, which you still have a measure of influence over. What can’t be changed is that this is at heart a basic moral issue and morality is an invariant which should never be subject to the passing vicissitudes of fashion or alarmed public opinion.

The killing of the innocents is wrong, standing idly by when that’s done for nothing better than a mistaken idea grown into a well-intentioned but homicidal monster or for a quick buck, is wrong. Don’t delude yourself, the moneylenders are busy at work in your temples, doing brisk business under the righteous cloak of that false goddess Gaia but in reality serving nothing other than their own god Mammon. Your silence is helping them.

I’ll pose some new questions just for you, but I’m going to help you out by giving you the answers to them.

Will you ever read this article? Probably not. Will you ever read past the first page of Google’s reassuring results from various well-heeled green NGOs about any of the above questions? No. Will you ever stop to wonder how we eradicated malaria in the developed world using DDT and still have plenty of birds and bees? No. Will you ever try to calculate how many lives have been saved by us being malaria-free for over half a century? No. Will you think about why we’ve spent 800 billion dollars to fight global warming when the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen in nearly two decades? No. Will you consider the effect that amount of money could have had on poverty relief around the world? No.

Will you at least admit that standing idly by and not speaking out means there’s some blood on your hands? Just a touch, a smidgen even? No.

You are this very day in the midst of a silent ongoing genocide, a slowmo invisible annihilation, a new shoah of such dimensions as to put the Nazis to shame and yet you will not acknowledge it or speak out about it. You do nothing. Nothing, nada, nada and nada every time. It’s Hemingway’s prayer and that’s the prayer of those who not only believe they’ve been abandoned by God, but have ceased to believe there can even be such an entity.

“Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee.”

Can there actually be a god? What sort of god could countenance such needless cruelty, suffering and callous waste of innocent lives? Deus irae? An angry god? Is there a reason? Do you have a reason? An excuse? Anything?

All those millions of preventable deaths are the direct result of political policies driven by nothing more than fashionable ideas about what our relationship with the Earth should be. In the midst of it all, you ignore the pressing issues, preferring instead to hotly debate schismatic irrelevances like female or gay priests. It’s no wonder that whole sections of churches in the developing word are considering decoupling themselves from what they consider to be out of touch mother churches in the developed nations, who simply won’t engage with real problems, the ones which are killing people.

You plant saplings in your leafy suburbs doing your bit to save the Earth while the poor in the developing countries are running out of shrubs to burn to keep themselves alive. You talk about living in harmony with God’s good green Earth to your plump congregations while the world’s poor can do nothing more than lay damp towels over their dying children and hope for the fucking best. Tell me, who exactly needs your God’s forgiveness there? All my tears outside the walls of Babylon have long ago been wept; there’s nothing left in me now but an abiding anger towards you.

You are a part of the problem when you should by any decent notion of religious conviction be a major part of fixing it.

I am nothing and nobody, a small man with a small voice who long ago despaired of any faith in some sort of god. And yet I beseech you in the name of whatever god you follow to do something, or at least speak out. Like the Nazarene, you will not be rewarded for telling the simple truth.

Don’t tell me why god allows such things because there can be no reason, don’t bother debating god’s existence with me or his mysterious ways, just tell me why as a human being and a supposed man of god with some influence, you aren’t standing in your pulpit at every opportunity, raging and thundering to your congregation against such an obscene and preventable waste of human life and worse still, allowing that inhumanity to grind on day after pitiless day without doing a single thing about it.

Comments

The elitists now see the world as a Zero Sum Game – “I’ve got mine, but don’t try to get yours because it will be taken from my pie.” Essentially a philosophy based on despair, and the timidity of the ineffective (e.g., many academics). Hope and confidence lead to openness – to new ideas, to innovations, to an acceptance of change as the creator of opportunities for growth. Both have their pitfalls, but which would you rather live?

The right (in America anyway) rightly decries these terrible sins (yes it is a moral question) while supporting the biggest gulag the world has ever known in support of Prohibition (drugs are bad m’kay – no they are not, cannabis cures cancer and prevents glaucoma, among other things, cannabinoids are miracle drugs). The left in America decries the gulag. So tell me why the morality questions are selective and not universal?

Don’t tell me why god allows such things because there can be no reason, don’t bother debating god’s existence with me or his mysterious ways, just tell me why as a human being and a supposed man of god with some influence, you aren’t standing in your pulpit at every opportunity, raging and thundering to your congregation against such an obscene and preventable waste of human life and worse still, allowing that inhumanity to grind on day after pitiless day without doing a single thing about it.

Well I ask the same questions about Prohibition and use my f’n pulpit to rail against Prohibition. It really is all about the Prohibition mentality. Energy, drugs, food, what have you.

“The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me, for it is your duty to tolerate truth; but when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error.” Lord Macaulay 1843

There is no answer to your question beyond man’s inhumanity to man, and it has always been thus. Survival on the Blue Planet has always been a crap shoot – depends on when and where we’re born, the colour of our skin, the class or caste we’re born into, what kind of food our parents can put on the table and what kind of roof is over our heads; slate, tile or grass thatch.

Greed, corruption and injustice have also been part of our social fabric since some thug of a caveman carved the meatiest haunches off a buffalo to feed himself – the rest of the tribe got his leftovers.

In the 21st century we really do have a global village complete with shamans who examine the bloody entrails of some hapless goat and tell the village elders how they can become richer at the expense of neighbouring tribes.

As for the men in the pulpits – their priority has always been the tithes their doctrines can attract, and so long as the cash keeps flowing in their direction, they’ll remain silent.

This charade will play itself out until the money dries up and a more real and present danger puts us all at risk and our economies in a greater state of flux. It’s only a matter of time.

Those who should speak out are damned by your words Pointman, but the question and challenge is aimed at us all.

I have tried to do my very little bit and express the anger against those who promoted bio-fuels killing people in the third world, clearing rain forests and having a negative effect on CO2 emissions in any event. The greens demanded that governments went down that route ranting in their usual fashion at anyone who dared to oppose the idea. Now that all can see it was the wrong thing to do they pretend that they were not the promoters of it – scum that they are. AND worse the governments they convinced can’t (won’t) reverse the stupidity.

I re-read your related piece on VAD and your last paragraph –

“Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, who subsequently resigned from the organisation in protest at the direction it had taken, called the people preventing the introduction of golden rice, “murderers”. I agree but would qualify it, they’re child murderers. If there is a Hell, I hope they burn in it.”

Sadly Pointman I don’t think there is a hell – but let us not get into that argument.

I am not often moved by the words of a song but these by Chris Rea get me every time since I don’t think there is a heaven either.

I have asked on different forums the question of why so much money is wasted on Green Energy over food, and basically the answer boiled down to we don’t care, people have always starved, so be it. I look to your blog for some reassurance that I am not the only one who sees this as insane and cruel.

I came to a belief in God only recently, as a way to explain my own firm belief in the wrongness of the world.

With following link I have asked Dr Connelley & Andrew Revkin respond. As you say, silence.

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor

Quote: “a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, ”

And the people’s actions (Prohibition) that is causing disaster? In all the comments so far no one has had a word to say about Prohibition besides me. Funny that.

Ah. Maybe I get it – the disaster is falling mostly on first worlders (if you ignore the Mexicans, Colombians, Guatemalans, etc. who are killed in the cross fires). But OK I get it. Because it is in some measure about pleasure they (the innocent victims, the guilty victims) are unworthy.

Only the starving poor are worthy of our sympathy. The jailed will live another day. And the dead? Well it serves them right for wanting pleasure, getting involved, trying to profit, needing medicine, or simply living in the wrong neighborhood.

I note that ending Alcohol Prohibition got more support it its day. And the medical uses of cannabis dwarf those of alcohol.

“Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful” Friedrich Nietzsche – we have an awful lot of those on the left and the right.

Prakash Javadekar, reiterated that India is not willing to discuss limitations on its rapidly growing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. “India’s first task is eradication of poverty,” Javadekar told the New York Times; “Twenty percent of our population doesn’t have access to electricity, and that’s our top priority. We will grow faster, and our emissions will rise.”

American and European climate change action advocates have ignored these realities, and have from the earliest engaged in relentless happy talk that a shift to renewable energy (chiefly solar, wind, and biofuels) would launch us down the golden road to a post-carbon energy future. The more economically illiterate among the climateers peddle the free-lunch argument that we’ll all get richer by mandating investment in more expensive, low-yield energy sources.

The relatively modest amounts of low-carbon energy developed over the last two decades have required enormous government subsidies and have delivered negligible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. (In some cases, like biofuels from palm oil and corn, the full environmental tradeoff is likely negative.) The bitter irony for the climateers is that the most significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have been achieved by the production of newly abundant cheap natural gas through fracking, which has been displacing coal at a rapid rate.

On the level of the average useful idiot we are dealing with the seen and the unseen as posed by Fredric Bastiat. These people simply see the obvious good but not the harm of their interventions. Bastiat explains it well, so I’ll leave it at that.

On another level, we deal with the greatest killing machine man has ever known, the state. An institution that through its power attracts the worst humanity has to offer and then empowers their desires to cause everything from economic misery to mass murder. To satisfy their lust of control over their fellow man.

They’ve been doing this for thousands of years and saving the planet is just an ancient technique in a new wrapper. When people rightfully fought back to stop their homes and food and air and water from being fouled by governments and corporations and careless neighbors some sort of lightbulb must have lit. It wasn’t long before our desire for basic clean water and clean air was turned back into the ancient method of control through fear of the weather, fear of the climate. Fear of anything the state could claim it is protecting us from.

Just sacrifice your children to the snake god and the sun will return. Pay tribute to your ruler and the gods will bring the spring rains. Thousands of years go by and the same basic scam still works.

Belief in God has nothing to do with these questions. It is all about being a civilized human being with a moral code. Some of the nastiest people I know are ‘religious’ and some of the nicest (my husband and his family) are atheists.

In other words being an agnostic (me) or an atheist Does Not Excuse You! Either you are a civilized human or you are an ill-mannered barbarian.

The aftermath of the NYC People’s Climate March is a very big tell. “Far Left Climate Activists Leave Mounds of Trash For Cities to Deal With”

Tea Party Protesters on the other hand leave the place cleaner than when they came.

Can anyone tell me why the media, the President, his administration and members of Congress refer to Civilized Humans as an “angry mob” of “terrorists” who should “go to hell?” Can anyone tell me why on the other hand the media, the President, his administration and many members of Congress parrot the phrases and champion the causes of the violent, criminal, ill-mannered barbarians?

I will be teaching at NCSU around December 10 so I hope we can get together again at that excellent burger palace. With a little luck my wife will be able to participate this time. You are going to like her.

I have only visited Pointman a couple of times before but now I have “Bookmarked” him. I like his style; he is not afraid to call a “Spade” a “Bloody Shovel”.

While I am absolutely in total agreement with everything you have said here, and do understand your anger, I only wish you would have left the F-bomb out of this otherwise excellent letter. You are obviously brilliant – thus, you just did not need to resort to using profanity in your letter. Though this point pales in comparison to the gravity of the points within your post here, I think staying above the use of profane words elevates the dialogue and makes your questions above being dismissed by the people who will use that one word to dismiss this excellent letter. We want to convict people, so that they get off their backsides and get involved – not offend them, so they can continue to dismiss the issues.

Unfortunately for all of us, the comfortable life those in developed nations enjoy has led to the great apathy we are battling. In my years of working to educate people about why they should care and get involved, I have come to the very sad realization that you simply can NOT make people care about others if they don’t, and sadly, that people simply will not make any effort to battle unrighteousness unless and until it affects them directly. That day will arrive, and the way things are going, it’s going to be sooner than later. God help us all.

Just a handful of the articles I’ve written in my efforts to help battle the “Green Dragon” over the years:

Why didn’t you just rewrite it to exactly channel your ideas? And while you’re at it, remove the fucking copyright notice. Fuckit, why not put your name to it. How stoopid can you get?

I’ve no objection to someone quoting bits, even long bits, but to just steal the whole lot for their blog is a bit fucking rich.

You’ll have to excuse the odd fuck here or there, but a fuck or two amongst friends is usually a friendly thing, as long as everyone is up for it. I didn’t consent on this occasion before taking one up the butt from you, and indeed wasn’t even asked.

I certainly do apologize for what I thought would be flattering to you – to repost your article, citing the fact “By Pointman”, with the link to your article. No need to worry. I’ll remove it, and feel free to do the same with my posts. Best to you Pointman.

What’s the point of working on a decent article if someone else just lifts it whole for their blog? What’s the point of recording a good song if someone else just copies it for their label? Why bother writing a book if someone else can just copy, reprint and give it away?

When all content is rip offable, who’d bother producing it? How difficult is that to understand? Fair use quotes, fine – no problemo. Just don’t rip off the whole shebang of other people’s content they’ve worked hard on.

Call me naive, and as I said – I apologize, but I really thought reposting your article — clearly citing “By Pointman,” with the link to your article — would be flattering to you. When others have reposted my articles in a similar manner, I have always been delighted that they liked what I wrote and chose to help spread the word. Somebody who is trying to “steal” something (and that certainly was NOT my intention) wouldn’t post you as the author – they’d sign their own name to it.

I complemented you on what I thought was an excellent article – so much so that I shared the link to your article all over the place (FB, Twitter, etc), and I’m getting slammed for what I thought was helping to pass your work on to others. As I also said, no need to worry – I’ve already removed it. Best of luck to you in the future Pointman.

Howdy Miss Mary Kay. It’s real nice of you to drop in on the Pointman’s blog and give us common folks the benefit of your wisdom.

In my part of the world it’s considered to be poor manners to correct another person’s way of expressing himself, especially when you take only four letters out of 1500 words and suggest that, having read this particular heart-rending sentence – “ … the world’s poor can do nothing more than lay damp towels over their dying children and hope for the fucking best.” – “people who will use that one word to dismiss this excellent letter” should be given any credence whatsoever.

Perhaps you’d like to censor the works of Shakespeare and his frequent use of this and other four-letter words of the Olde English language. And maybe you could recall another wise man’s words … “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.

The blogosphere can be an odd place at times, but dropping 26 links to your own work is also considered to be bad manners. Wassup Miss Mary Kay? Do you think you need to bolster your credibility in your clumsy honey-coated attempt to censure another person’s choice of expression?

But then, like all “Educators”, a degree of arrogance is inevitable after a career pontificating from behind a lectern (or a pulpit). Hey, you never know, some day if I get bored with sticking pins in my eyes and have a month or two to spare, I might get around to clicking on those 26 links and then … Hallelujah! … I might finally get myself some educayshun and be all the better for it.

Frankly Blackswan, I never thought Pointman would post my letter to him. I shared some of the stuff I’ve been writing over the past decade with him because I wanted to let him know that there are others out there that have been trying to do something, and others that share his frustration with the apathy going on in the world today while people are dying as a result.

The fact that somebody who agrees with the point of view expressed in Pointman’s article here is now being attacked for perhaps not expressing my support correctly as far as you all are concerned, only highlights why we won’t ever get anywhere trying to fight the real problems he discusses in the article – people are too busy attacking each other over the small stuff.

To suggest that such a poignant, heartfelt essay would be “dismissed” by people who would be “offended” by a single swear word and who would then ignore the cruelty and injustice cited, is certainly petty and patronising.

We all have something to bring to the table, expressed as unique individuals, and a little mutual respect wouldn’t go astray. We don’t always like what we read and we can accept it or reject it without censuring (or editing) another person’s work. To do so is simple arrogance.

I respectfully disagree Blackswan. As a writer myself, I have had numerous people make edits to my work, and/or make critical comments for my consideration over the years. I did not attack those editors/commenters in response. I considered their comments with a grain of salt, and I believe it has improved my writing over the years by doing so.

I praised Pointman for an “excellent” piece, and referred to him as “brilliant” – then offered a sincere apology for what he interpreted differently than I intended it, and wished him the best going forward. Not much any person can do beyond that.

I contracted malaria at age 17. It was a painless, weird experience (delirium) but I survived. Three of four flu-like recurrences, each one less severe than the last. No problems today other than the Red Cross won’t accept blood donations from me.

Malaria kills far more people than Ebola yet we don’t care enough to make DDT available where it is needed.

Just wrote a similar statementin the UK Daily mail comment section. The section ‘http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2780436/Osborne-rails-against-charities-anti-business-agenda-urges-firms-stand-free-market.html ‘

I’ll tell you why. Because we are up against a movement that has its own morality that is held just as strongly as ours. The morality has been called “global salvationism.” This morality is held so strongly that questions such as yours never intrude on the thought processes; in fact the thoughts they represent are not allowed into their mental state, such as it is. This is hard wired. Along with this morality comes a belief in their own ability to decide what is best for everyone on a microscale that may surprise you (read the contents of Agenda 21).

These philosopher-kings believe in top-down control using methods and ideas repeatedly shown to have failed, if not having created mountains of bodies. They loathe the free market and demonize it at every turn, despite its having been responsible for their own wealth and prosperity. They run many Western governments and continually seek new rationales to expand the size and power of government. Global warming is perhaps the most important of these rationales.

Rapidly developing economies led by China will have none of this. They will act in their own self interest. Even India seems to be moving back toward sanity in the pursuit of lifting its population of of poverty. How this plays out in still lagging areas of the world such as Sub Saharan Africa remains to be seen.

Add to this mix the changing demographics in much of the West, and it becomes obvious that the West is finished and that the baton has been passed to the new economies of Asia. The best thing that can happen is that global trade remains in place which will tend to discourage major conflicts. Obviously the Middle East and revanchist Russia are sources of instability which could erupt in disastrous fashion. But what you should to look for is a global morality that will “care” much about the things that bother you.

But at least the Right is primarily focused on saving us from Big Government. You are correct, however, about control vs liberty. It is also about Big X vs the individual. The Right is for Big Business, the Left for Big Unions and Big Government. There is absolutely no voice for individuals, families, or small businesses. And, ironically, these are the keys to unlocking our current economic mess.

A rich embroider to your heartfelt keening, doubtless a Gaelic influence. Wherein and among such utter human tragedy, just merely putting words together to form banal sentences is not enough – yet you can, make the reader start, searing words draw and make eyes sting, lad.

I was reading some Dylan Thomas t’other day – boy oh boy – that beautiful mind! Could he magick simple words into dancing prose – and bind them all together to mean something far more.

No righteous person feels righteous; they just do what needs to be done, serving others and seeking no reward. By contrast, those you decry glory in their false righteousness, their holier-than-thou-ness. Conceding your valid points would damage their fragile, but over-blown, egos.

What to do? Anger, as voiced by one or two here, serves no purpose, it just demeans you.
Ultimately, each of us must behave in a genuinely moral way, caring for others, helping to purify ourselves of those faults you identify, and be a shining light to others. And, if we know how to help others change, do so, as I have done for over 40 years. Of course, this requires wisdom and understanding: good volition alone is not enough.

Neither rational discussion nor opprobrium will change people with those Gaiaesque or socialist redistributive views. The battlelines drawn in the 1980s have not been changed by evidence or argument. But your blog can help strengthen those who see clearly.

Excellent bit of Work Mr Pointman ! I have expressed my appreciation of it on Dr Spencers website and threw a fuck or 2 of my own into the mix.
Why someone should rail against the word fuck when it is such a useful writing tool being both a noun a verb and an adjective best expressed,in my very humble opinion by the storyof a sergeant relating to an officer as to the condition of a vehicle “The fucking ,fucker is fucked Sir!”

i was so excited by GM seeds some years ago (your ref to Golden rice). Cure hungriness through drought resistance etc. Here’s an answer for the world I thought.

The introduction of ‘Terminator genes’, the necessity to sterilize fields using round-up before planting has shaken me to the core.

Could we as a species really be that evil?

As a personal aside, I was a very early in life heart attack victim (in my 40’s), and have been on max dosage statins for the last 7 years.

Recently the fog descended, along with the aches and pains, which I will see my Doctor about next week. Nobody bothered to tell me that my treatment could effect my mental health when I was prescribed the things. I was just a nice + on the balance sheet. (80 mg per day gives the max profit)

Evil upon evil – now I am a victim of the machine.

You are 100% right. We have to wake up, but GMO is not the way to do it until these bastards grow a conscience.

Apologies for the maudlin personal rant last evening, I fear that a couple of good Australian whites may have been involved. I was trying to say in a ham fisted way that I trust neither agri or pharma business to look beyond quick profit under the prevailing thinking of those that run them.

Completely understandable Hoppers – your anger at Big Agri/Big Pharma is justified. Genetic modification aside, the alarm bells were ringing when they were permitted to patent seeds that they had no business in creating. Today croppers pay a premium for their seed stock that didn’t exist before it was patented and now industry is looking to patent the human genome. What a farce. With stem cell research now offering new hope to those suffering chronic illness or spinal injury, there is little that is altruistic in their research. We can all understand return-on-investment for shareholders, but patenting human genetics is somehow obscene imho.

Well hopper, your core should be back to normal after I explain what a terminator gene is, and how it will actually help most farmers. First of all there are already many crops that have no viable seeds, seedless watermelon, seedless grapes. The terminator gene is just a fancy triploid seed, a mule in the seed world.
Terminator gene have never been introduced, but as a farmer, i really wish that they were, especially for canola, Oats and other bothersome volunteers (crops that grow where you don’t want them to grow) Terminator traits would help farmers rotate crops using far less herbicides and it will increase productivity.

Roundup is the least toxic herbicide on the market, it doesn’t sterilize the soils. in fact it helps farmers build up the soils using no/min till technology.

It is unfortunate that very many of the people who possess the gift of communication and writing are all to often willing to sell their gift for filthy lucre. You, Pointman, have the gift, yet you also have a moral gravitas which prevents you from exploiting that gift as, say Al Gore, did. I rarely pay this compliment: Thank you for being you.

One thing worth noting. If the climate alarmists truly cared about “saving the planet” from human intervention, they would look at the most effective policy possible. A global problem requires global solutions, so the greatest efforts would be concentrated in getting the biggest reduction in emissions for the least effort. They would realize that getting the good citizens of Luxembourg or Solihull to recycle 95% instead of 80% of their waste, and to walk an extra mile a week, pales into insignificance when planned new coal-fired power stations in Asia have a capacity greater than that of the EU in total. Or that old-fashioned smog from coal is of much greater problem now to the citizens of Beijing, Delhi or many other multi-millionaire countries, to what future CO2 levels could ever be. So why are not the greatest efforts of the alarmist movement concentrated on showing these big CO2 polluters the path to enlightenment, rather then exalting the converted to ever greater levels of pain for no benefit to Mother Gaia? When a doctor tries to save a patient from the suffering of cancer or AIDS, they look to weigh the benefits of treatment with the pain and the risks of that treatment. The best will recognize there are limits to what can be achieved. Within that constaint they will have a strong moral obligation to achieve the best possible outcome.

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
There isn’t much to add. Do we have any answers?
I say the reasons westerners have some many problems is we have no real problems.
Let’s resolve to speak out. We must speak out against hate and violence, but even worse is indifference.
We must stand up, speak out, and do more than give another grant to some researcher riding the gravy train of trying to save the earth.

Pointy,
Excellent article, seems to draw on some of the themes I’ve been promoting over the last little while I have about 13 of them but the most egregious is this. In the preindustrial era when CO2 was ideal there was probably less than 2 Billion people on the planet, half of then having just been wiped out by the little ice age. Since then, as CO2 increased, the population boomed, CO2 fortunately rose to 400 PPM which now fuels the crop yields needed to feed that population. The problem of course is that mankind is totally dependent on the higher CO2 and a return to 270 PPM and the 50 % fall in crop yields that would cause is, well, UNSUSTAINABLE. The good Bishop is now advocating a course of action that could decimate the population by almost half focussed on the poorest and most vulnerable populations on earth, those that AREN’T buffered by the availability of a reliable energy source.

The idea of pushing down on CO2 and by inference energy at the same time as the same action halves crop productivity is morally indefensible, and bordering on genicidal. Frankly I’m disgusted at the churches disregard for human life.

It’s all an oxymoron, Sustainability as defined by the greens is totally unsustainable.

Click on it to go full size. Links to previous jiffies can be found here, where you can also leave comments.

Reporting on the cultural suicide of the West.

Since governments across Europe and their lackeys in the media suppress any reporting of the cultural destruction of Europe, I feel it important that the free internet should publicise such almost daily events – if only for the victims of sexual violence who’re sadly being ignored.

The Vblogger soap box.

Uncensored alternatives to mainstream sites.

Be warned, once you start using these alternatives to heavily censored and data mined sites like Facebook or Twitter, you'll stick with them out of a pure sense of relief at not having to watch every word you say.

Try them. You'll have to make your own mind up but I use most of them. Let us know what you think.

Startpage.
An alternative to Google which does not record your IP address or log your queries.

Gab.
An uncensored alternative to Twitter but much richer in terms of content. Here you'll find all the news and gossip the mainstream media refuses to report.

Voat.
An uncensored alternative to Reddit which is ruled nowadays by tin pot fascists just eager to pounce on you for a misplaced pronoun.

WrongThink.
Yet another uncensored alternative to Facebook. I never used Facebook personally, but I'm just trying WrongThink out myself under my Pointman handle. I'll let you know how I get on.

VIDME.
An alternative to YouTube. Good monetarising options, no advertising and no censorship.

Infogalactic.
An alternative to Wikipedia which is mercifully free of the sinister manipulations of creatures like William Connolley.

Bitchute.
Another alternative to YouTube which is not so oppressively censored and offers significantly better options to monetarise content you upload. All a bit beta though.

Minds.
An open source alternative to Facebook which I haven't tried yet. If you do, let us have your feedback.